Wednesday, February 06, 2013

Long time Colorado Rockies first baseman Todd Helton was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol Wednesday, the team announced. The incident occurred in Thornton, Colo.

The team released a statement along with the announcement of his arrest.

“We were extremely disappointed to learn that Todd was arrested this morning. This type of behavior is taken very seriously by our organization. We know that he clearly understands the seriousness of his poor decision, the harm that could have been inflicted on others and the embarrassment his mistake has caused to himself, his family, the Colorado Rockies organization and to Major League Baseball,” the statement read. “Todd is taking full accountability for his actions with his family, his fans and the organization. The man we have grown to know has strong values that are grounded in his family and hard work. Todd clearly understands the severity of the situation.”

Helton himself expressed remorse for his actions, issuing a public apology through the team.

“I am very sorry and embarrassed by my actions. I hold myself to a high standard and take my responsibility as a public figure very seriously. My entire career I have worked to set a positive example for my family and in our community, and I fell far short of this standard,” Helton said. “I humbly ask your forgiveness”

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Playing 1B must be very stressful, they seem to get all the DUI arrests...(well Cabrera has since moved to 3B, but still...)

This is actually an interesting observation that might have some truth to it. Not that 1B is more stressful, but that the Body By Budweiser plays better at first, so you're more likely to have drinkers there than elsewhere. If you drink yourself out of shape and play SS you won't last long, but a 1B who drinks away his range can stick around a while.

And yes, for the love of god hire a car service. Even if there are no taxis around you should be able to arrange for a ride with a little bit of forethought. I am not able to drive for medical reasons right now, and it is a pain in the ass and it is somewhat limiting, but it wouldn't be if I had Helton's kind of money.

My guess would be "I drove to work; I drove to the bar. I need to drive to work in the morning. I can't leave my car where it is overnight." So I think an effective service would also have to get the guy's car home with him.

Playing 1B must be very stressful, they seem to get all the DUI arrests...(well Cabrera has since moved to 3B, but still...)

This article lists a number of players arrested for DUI -- Derek Lowe, Adam Kennedy, Miguel Cabrera, Austin Kearns, Shin-Soo Choo, Coco Crisp. I am not seeing much of a pattern there in terms of positions.

“I am very sorry and embarrassed by my actions. I hold myself to a high standard and take my responsibility as a public figure very seriously. My entire career I have worked to set a positive example for my family and in our community, and I fell far short of this standard,” Helton said. “I humbly ask your forgiveness”

"I drove to work; I drove to the bar. I need to drive to work in the morning. I can't leave my car where it is overnight."

Well, actually you can leave your car overnight and take a taxi home. Then take a taxi to work and pick up the car later; this is what I do. If the car is vandalised, I assume Helton has insurance for that type of stuff.

As we have all stressed, with the amount of money these guys have, there is no excuse at all for this situation ever occuring.

BTW, 22 beers isn't that much. I assume Coors is just over 3% alcohol(most Aussie and European beers sit around 5%), so in reality it's like 13 Aussie beers. Heck, I'm 48 and know dudes my age that can consume that much alcohol in a few hours.

BTW, 22 beers isn't that much. I assume Coors is just over 3% alcohol(most Aussie and European beers sit around 5%), so in reality it's like 13 Aussie beers. Heck, I'm 48 and know dudes my age that can consume that much alcohol in a few hours.

No way. Coors is 5% ABV and Coors Light is 4.2%, according to various Internet sources.

For people saying "call a cab," that's not an option that pops into most people's mind in some places. Growing up in Atlanta, I never once got a cab. I mean, if prompted I would have known they existed, and I knew other people must be using them since they exist, but even if I was stranded somewhere it would never have occurred to me to take a cab.

A drunk younger-me not only would have had to figure out how to even call a cab, I would have had to deduce that such a thing was possible. Not likely. Much more likely that I just run off into the night and hope I'm within a few miles of my house.

Don't know about MLB but the NFLPA has one and players don't use it because they are afraid teams will use it against them, even though it's supposed to be confidential.

It's a good point. And not just the teams. MLB can't keep drug test results confidential long enough to get through an appeal and players are supposed to believe that the drivers will keep things confidential? How long before you've got a picture of a drunk player making out with a 20-year-old who's not his wife the night before game 1 of the World Series plastered on the internet? Then again, you can probably trust a limo driver more than a lab professional or an MLB Exec -- they've been pretty discreet about Jeter over the years plus the limo company is gonna know which driver took the pic.

My guess would be "I drove to work; I drove to the bar. I need to drive to work in the morning. I can't leave my car where it is overnight." So I think an effective service would also have to get the guy's car home with him.

There used to be a service here in Minneapolis/St. Paul that would do that. Two guys in a car would arrive, one would drive you and your car home, and the other would follow and pick up the driver. I think they're still in business.

They have a service like this in Oxford, Mississippi that is partially subsidized by the city. You make the call and a fellow shows up at your car on a collapsible moped. He folds it up and stows it in your trunk, then drives you home and scooters his way back into town for his next client. I don't think the model would work well in a town much bigger than Oxford, but it seems like a good idea there.

Local news here is reporting that Helton drank 22 cans of Coors and had a BAC of 0.08

That's pretty improbable. Just jiggling the results at bloodalcoholcalculator.org for a 250 lb male (Helton's B-R says 220) he'd have to be drinking for something like 14 hours to get down to 0.08 after that many beers. Of course, that's assuming real beer.

That's pretty improbable. Just jiggling the results at bloodalcoholcalculator.org for a 250 lb male (Helton's B-R says 220) he'd have to be drinking for something like 14 hours to get down to 0.08 after that many beers. Of course, that's assuming real beer.

Or that BAC thing is wrong. And what he blew is what he blew.

And 0.08 isn't necessarily impaired (below what many other drivers on the road have at 0.00)

BAC is a BAD proxy. There should be reaction tests given upon licensing against a required baseline. At 30 mph, you have to react this quick. At 45, that quick, At 55 this quick, at 65 bisquik.

Then when you are pulled for DUI, if you can perform the reaction tests above the required baseline, no DUI. This BAC crap is crap.

My guess would be "I drove to work; I drove to the bar. I need to drive to work in the morning. I can't leave my car where it is overnight." So I think an effective service would also have to get the guy's car home with him.

It exists in many cities: a car comes with two guys. One drives your car and they drive away after dropping you off.

And 0.08 isn't necessarily impaired (below what many other drivers on the road have at 0.00)

BAC is a BAD proxy. There should be reaction tests given upon licensing against a required baseline. At 30 mph, you have to react this quick. At 45, that quick, At 55 this quick, at 65 bisquik.

Then when you are pulled for DUI, if you can perform the reaction tests above the required baseline, no DUI. This BAC crap is crap.

Yeah, you know who is really good at determining if they are capable of driving? Drunk people.

Is BAC perfect? Of course not, but it is easily the best and fairest system we have readily available. It's far better than relying on some subjective test performed by a policeman. Or some objective reaction test, which could easily be influenced by nerves, or adrenaline. And it's infinitely better than just letting drunk drivers roam the streets with no consequences.

Don't want to get a DUI, don't drink and drive. It's not fucking rocket science.

This article lists a number of players arrested for DUI -- Derek Lowe, Adam Kennedy, Miguel Cabrera, Austin Kearns, Shin-Soo Choo, Coco Crisp. I am not seeing much of a pattern there in terms of positions.

That makes it easier to create an All-DUI lineup. Tony La Russa could manage.

In Pittsburgh on a weekend night you wait a couple hours after calling a taxi company before one arrives. There are TWO neighborhoods where cabs are actually circulating. I spent almost ten years there, only owned a car for three of those years, and I took a cab a total of four times. And that's PITTSBURGH. Good luck in Defiance, Ohio.

However, Helton has millions of dollars and was drunk driving on a Wednesday. Therefore he has no excuse.

Is BAC perfect? Of course not, but it is easily the best and fairest system we have readily available. It's far easier than the government having to prove "impairment."

FTFY

Bull. We know how that system would work. It would be your word against the arresting officer, and you would lose. Every time. BAC tests are your best friend.

That aside, there are plenty of studies that show people who have been drinking believe across the board that they are less impaired than they actually are. So forgive me if cries of "I was fine to drive. Really. I can handle 1.2 BAC! It's just other people that can't handle that!" ring rather hollow.

Is BAC perfect? Of course not, but it is easily the best and fairest system we have readily available. It's far better than relying on some subjective test performed by a policeman. Or some objective reaction test, which could easily be influenced by nerves, or adrenaline. And it's infinitely better than just letting drunk drivers roam the streets with no consequences.

Why is BAC a better test than a different objective test? BAC is easily influenced as well.

BAC is a BAD proxy. There should be reaction tests given upon licensing against a required baseline. At 30 mph, you have to react this quick. At 45, that quick, At 55 this quick, at 65 bisquik.

I once dated a woman who was a very good field hockey and soccer goalie in college. She had astonishing reflexes. At the State Fair we did a DUI simulator in which you watched a video screen and had to mash a break pedal when a kid rolled out on a bicycle. The simulator added a delay to simulate various levels of drunkenness. I killed the kid when I was still under the limit, but my GF got up to the max (.12, I think) without hitting the kid. The cop running the thing said that was the first time he'd ever seen that done. Point is that she could probably have gotten herself to the point where she was drunkenly stumbling around and semi-incoherent and clearly unable to drive and still have reflexes as good as an average person's. There's a lot more to driving than just reflexes.

The simulator added a delay to simulate various levels of drunkenness. I killed the kid when I was still under the limit, but my GF got up to the max (.12, I think) without hitting the kid. The cop running the thing said that was the first time he'd ever seen that done. Point is that she could probably have gotten herself to the point where she was drunkenly stumbling around and semi-incoherent and clearly unable to drive and still have reflexes as good as an average person's. There's a lot more to driving than just reflexes.

Let's try to think outside the box a little. Let's construct a test that *would be* reflective of driving. BAC isn't a good one. I mean the range at which people don't function well behind the wheel can be 0.04 to 0.14. And we put everyone at 0.08? That makes no sense.

Let's measure what we are wanting to measure. And yes, thre are people with BACs over 0.08 that are better drivers than plenty of people on the road today - like really old people (not all of them, but a bunch of them).

Well, I suggested reaction times. In the world of ipads, we can easily have a visual recognition and reaction time test that is just as indicative of driving a car as BAC. Fortunately you guys can add the link that shows the studies on driving a car baseline vs BAC.

Go ahead. Name one. There is no other objective test.

No, there may not be one now, but a decade ago, if I had said "lets have better cellphones than the Nokia flip phone" you would have said "Go ahead. Name One. *There isn't a better phone*".

In the world of ipads, we can easily have a visual recognition and reaction time test that is just as indicative of driving a car as BAC. Fortunately you guys can add the link that shows the studies on driving a car baseline vs BAC.

Would you really be happier if you got a DUI for screwing up an ipad game when you had a low BAC?

Well, I suggested reaction times. In the world of ipads, we can easily have a visual recognition and reaction time test that is just as indicative of driving a car as BAC.

Subject to huge random variation. The fact that being asked under a situation that is by default stressful, is basically going to mean all you are going to be measuring is how good people are at dealing with stress, and playing video games. In no way is that going to lead to an accurate measure of impairment.

No, there may not be one now, but a decade ago, if I had said "lets have better cellphones than the Nokia flip phone" you would have said "Go ahead. Name One. *There isn't a better phone*".

Also, I just learned from b-r that his nickname is... The Toddfather? Really?

Yeah, they did a commercial campaign a couple of years ago that played on it (or maybe created it), where he played the sage Godfather-on-his-daughter's-wedding-day character, complete with music as I recall.

Also, Deadspin's making a big deal out of the "drunken drive to get... LOTTERY TICKETS????" thing, but the version of the police report I read on the Denver Post said he had lottery tickets AND CHEWING TOBACCO in his hand, which seems to have been edited out of the version on TMZ. Which makes a hell of a lot more sense as a motivator to get out and drive somewhere at 2 am than lottery tickets.

Also, I just learned from b-r that his nickname is... The Toddfather? Really?

You can't trust nicknames on b-r especially for modern players. It's like they just accept any name emailed to them by some guy who likes making up dumb nicknames. According to b-r, one of Sosa's nicknames is "Say it ain't Sosa" which I've never heard him called and is a clear reference to his supposed PED use. They claim Mark Grace had the nickname "Amazing". Jason Heyward is the "J-Hey Kid" which I recall is a dumb nickname somebody on this very board made up for him.

I mean I wouldn't be surprised that nobody ever really called Mickey Mantle the Commerce Comet but, y'know, that one was handed down to us so we have an excuse. But Derek Jeter as Mr. November? Really?

It would be your word against the arresting officer, and you would lose. Every time. BAC tests are your best friend.

Not in North Carolina, they aren't. There are two (actually, three) ways you can be convicted of DWI here:

1. Per se (.08 or greater)
2. Appreciable impairment (officer's testimony, based on people foolishly failing to exercise their right to remain silent, and voluntarily performing Field Sobriety Tests that are set up to make people fail)
3. Having any amount of a Schedule I or II substance in your blood (hardly ever used)

So, you can be convicted of DWI even if you blow a .07 or less, if the officer is convincing enough in his or her testimony as to your appreciable impairment of your mental and/or physical faculties due to an impairing substance: unsteady on feet, red and glassy eyes, strong odor of alcoholic beverage on breath, failed Horizontal Gaze Nytagmus test, failed Walk and Turn test, failed Finger to Nose test, failed Walk and Turn test, admitted consumption of alcohol, etc.

3. Having any amount of a Schedule I or II substance in your blood (hardly ever used)

Seriously? So I could get busted for DWI in North Carolina for taking my ADD meds?

That's just dopey.

Subject to huge random variation. The fact that being asked under a situation that is by default stressful, is basically going to mean all you are going to be measuring is how good people are at dealing with stress, and playing video games. In no way is that going to lead to an accurate measure of impairment.

Exactly. I would not do well on such a test stone cold sober, and my father would fail every time.

No, there may not be one now, but a decade ago, if I had said "lets have better cellphones than the Nokia flip phone" you would have said "Go ahead. Name One. *There isn't a better phone*".

(A) I don't believe there was a Nokia flip phone (weren't all their phones the candybar style?), and (B) if it were the best phone at the time, wouldn't you go with it?

Sure, someday someone might invent a better objective test, but until such time, we're sort of stuck with it.

Wrong again. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration claims, and I think there are scientific studies to back them up, that failing HGN (failing four or more clues) is 77% reliable for a .10. Combining failing HGN with WAT (two or more clues) is 80% reliable for a .10. Failing OLS (two or more clues) is 65% reliable for .10.

Of course, it's still the officer's testimony that you "failed," and these studies were tied to .10 instead of .08. But the intoxilyzers are operated by the officer, too, and have variability. They also fail to account for different body sizes, different absorption rates, and the like.

One difference: you can refuse the FSTs, and also refuse to talk to the officer (although most don't). In most states, however, you generally can't refuse the intoxilyzer, under the theory that you have impliedly consented to having your breath tested by getting behind the wheel on a street or highway of your state.

And don't even get me started on how the concept of "implied consent" ought to run afoul of the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments.

So, you can be convicted of DWI even if you blow a .07 or less, if the officer is convincing enough in his or her testimony as to your appreciable impairment of your mental and/or physical faculties due to an impairing substance: unsteady on feet, red and glassy eyes, strong odor of alcoholic beverage on breath, failed Horizontal Gaze Nytagmus test, failed Walk and Turn test, failed Finger to Nose test, failed Walk and Turn test, admitted consumption of alcohol, etc.

Right, that was my point basically. Imagine if they got rid of #1, and made #2 mandatory, rather than voluntary as it is now. It's ludicrous on it's face to believe that that would lead to a fairer system. If you are pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving, your only out is passing a BAC test, anything else, and you may as well just sign a confession. Hence a BAC test is your best friend.

Wrong again. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration claims, and I think there are scientific studies to back them up, that failing HGN (failing four or more clues) is 77% reliable for a .10. Combining failing HGN with WAT (two or more clues) is 80% reliable for a .10. Failing OLS (two or more clues) is 65% reliable for .10.

So you are saying 1 in 3 to 1 in 5 false positives or negatives? That's not compellingly accurate.

Seriously? So I could get busted for DWI in North Carolina for taking my ADD meds?

That's just dopey.

Oops. That was off the top of my head. Just double-checked N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-138.1 (DWI). It's only Schedule I, not Schedule I and II, for which you can be convicted for having any amount in your blood. Schedule I (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-89) includes a whole bunch of stuff whose names I don't recognize, and some that I do: LSD, Peyote, Psilocybin, Methaqualone, Heroin. Schedule II (§ 90-90) includes opium, Codeine, Hydrocodone, Morphine, Oxycodone, Methadone, amphetamines, methamphetamines, and Pentobarbital.

If you are pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving, your only out is passing a BAC test

No. Remember, you are (theoretically, at least) innocent until proven guilty. If you knew enough to refuse the FSTs, didn't answer questions, and were allowed to refuse to blow into the Intoxilyzer, the State would have a fairly hard time of convicting you Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, especially if you weren't driving erratically. Say you were stopped for no seat belt, or no registration, or no tag, or were stopped at a traffic checkpoint (which I also consider unconstitutional under the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments).

"An analysis of breath gas, using a "breathalyzer" (which the police can do immediately, on the road) gives only an indirectly determined value for blood alcohol level (BAC). It's based on how much alcohol is in some portion of exhaled air, not how much alcohol is in the blood.
To calculate content of blood alcohol from that of exhaled air, the content of alcohol in the air is normally multiplied by the number 2,100. This number, known as a "partition coefficient" or "partition ratio," is used because the lung air exhaled by an "average" person usually has 1/2100th the amount of alcohol of an equal volume of blood.
Using this average figure amounts to little more than scientific guesswork. In fact, the value varies for the same person over time and depends on body temperature and even respiration rate. For these reasons, the calculated blood alcohol level (printed or displayed on a readout on the machine) may be wrong.
Alcohol-containing substances in the mouth can also produce falsely high readings, since the amount of alcohol vapor they give off is much greater than any amount exhaled from the lungs. This includes stomach fluid vomited or regurgitated up within 20 minutes of taking the test, some toothache medicines, mouthwashes, and breath fresheners. Even a burp just before or while blowing into the breathalyzer tube may cause a falsely high reading. For this reason, the person administering the test is supposed to watch the subject for at least 20 minutes prior to taking the test to make sure he or she doesn't burp, belch, regurgitate, vomit, or put anything into the mouth.
There's also the possibility of a malfunction in the breath-testing devices. To assure accuracy, the device must be frequently calibrated with air containing known amounts of alcohol. The police department's records should indicate how often the device has been calibrated, serviced, and used.
Finally, because breath gas analysis (the breathalyzer test) is often inaccurate, the driver may be asked to take the tests two, or even three, times to produce a consistent result. Failure to give the police all the breath samples they want will result in the driver's license being suspended."

No. Remember, you are (theoretically, at least) innocent until proven guilty. If you knew enough to refuse the FSTs, didn't answer questions, and were allowed to refuse to blow into the Intoxilyzer, the State would have a fairly hard time of convicting you Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, especially if you weren't driving erratically. Say you were stopped for no seat belt, or no registration, or no tag, or were stopped at a traffic checkpoint (which I also consider unconstitutional under the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments).

Oh, they'll still arrest you, and you can spend at least one night in jail (try not to get arrested on a Friday night, OK?).
And your car could be towed, plus storage fees.
And if you refuse any blood test, you can lose your license for a year (and "No... well, OK, I guess" is a 'refusal,' if the cop doesn't like you that day).
And the state of Missouri (backed by the Obama DOJ) just argued in the Supreme Court that, if you refuse a breath test, cops should be allowed to haul you into the station or a local hospital, strap you down and draw your blood, no warrant needed. (if you're suspected of pot in your system, that's a urine test... and, yes, there are already police departments out there arguing that forced catheterization is juuuuust fine, no warrant necessary.)

All of that can happen even if they drop the charges the next day. As they say, "You can beat the rap - but you can't beat the ride."

I think this stems from one of the NY papers calling him this in a headline during the postseason of 2001, which was of course extended into November due to 9/11. I recall that Jeter got a big postseason hit on November 1st or something.

I think this stems from one of the NY papers calling him this in a headline during the postseason of 2001, which was of course extended into November due to 9/11. I recall that Jeter got a big postseason hit on November 1st or something.

Actually, a fan came prepared with a " Mr November" sign and held it up for the TV cameras after Jeter's game-winning HR in Game 4 of the 2001 World Series.